But I do believe we'll get to the point they will replace more and more engineers. yes, I don't know how fast, I don't know if LLM will be able to reach that point. But eventually, all that money in research will get somewhere I believe.
Once you do that, then it is not "vibe coding".
> But I do believe we'll get to the point they will replace more and more engineers.
Well some software engineers will get replaced. However, your claim was "all engineers", which isn't realistic.
Given the amount of safety mission critical software that runs the internet, air traffic control for planes, cars and embedded devices, etc they will always need human software engineers to review, test and maintain all of that, including the Linux kernel itself which runs almost everywhere.
Fully replacing all of them with LLMs would be outright irresponsible.
> But eventually, all that money in research will get somewhere I believe.
Of course, LLM security researchers and consultants breaking vibe-coded apps.
Someone has to maintain that code and there is not a single mention of that caveat after the software is built in the article and 99.9999% of the most widely used software is maintained by humans - even if parts of it was vibe-coded, a human has to maintain it so that it functions correctly, especially a must if it is mission critical software.
It is like we are celebrating mediocrity under the guise of AI and rebranding 'prototyping' as 'vibe-coding' but worse - software with fast accumulating technical debt, slapping on third-party risks and close to no tests at all.
Eventually, someone has to maintain that software and surely 9 times out of 10, a typical senior software engineer will look at that vibe-coded slop and will either throw it all away or reduce these third party services with existing robust open source versions.
Vibe-coding gets you faster to maintain the same negatives from traditional software engineering without you understanding what you are doing.